干旱胁迫对乌拉尔甘草苗生理特性的影响

doi:10.19586/j.2095-2341.2025.0140

生物技术进展 ›› 2026, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (1): 86-93.DOI: 10.19586/j.2095-2341.2025.0140

干旱胁迫对乌拉尔甘草苗生理特性的影响

张东¹(), 张晓艳¹, 李佳乐¹, 张愿欣¹, 张凤兰¹, 杨忠仁¹, 刘建文², 旭花²()

^1.内蒙古农业大学园艺与植物保护学院，呼和浩特 010011
^2.内蒙古阿拉善盟气象局，内蒙古阿拉善左旗 750306

收稿日期:2025-10-17 接受日期:2025-12-16 出版日期:2026-01-25 发布日期:2026-02-12
通讯作者: 旭花
作者简介:张东 E-mail: 1141764565@qq.com；
基金资助:
阿拉善盟科技计划项目(AMKJ2025-10);内蒙古农业大学高层次及优秀博士人才科研启动项目(NDYB2023-49);内蒙古自然科学基金项目(2025QN03014)

Effects of Drought Stress on Physiological Characteristics of Licorice Seedlings

Dong ZHANG¹(), Xiaoyan ZHANG¹, Jiale LI¹, Yuanxin ZHANG¹, Fenglan ZHANG¹, Zhongren YANG¹, Jianwen LIU², Hua XU²()

^1.College of Horticulture and Plant Protection，Inner Mongolia Agricultural University，Hohhot 010011，China
^2.Inner Mongolia Alxa League Meteorological Bureau，Inner Mongolia Alashan Left Banner 750306，China

Received:2025-10-17 Accepted:2025-12-16 Online:2026-01-25 Published:2026-02-12
Contact: Hua XU

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

探究了干旱胁迫对药用植物乌拉尔甘草（Glycyrrhiza uralensis）幼苗生理特性的影响及抗旱适应机制。以一年生乌拉尔甘草苗为材料，采用盆栽控水模拟干旱胁迫，设置正常供水对照组（CK）、轻度干旱胁迫组（light stress，LS）、中度干旱胁迫组（moderate stress，MS）和重度干旱胁迫组（severe stress，SS），测定抗氧化系统及渗透调节物质等关键生理参数。结果发现，随着干旱胁迫程度的加剧，甘草叶和根中丙二醛（malondialdehyde，MDA）和H₂O₂含量整体呈增加趋势，而在MS组和SS组甘草根中 $O 2 -$ 含量均低于CK组。甘草根的总抗氧化能力和过氧化物（peroxidase，POD）均呈先增加后减小趋势，甘草叶POD和过氧化氢酶(catalase，CAT)活性呈先减小后增加趋势，而甘草叶和根中超氧化物歧化酶（superoxide dismutase，SOD）活性均呈先增加后减小趋势。干旱胁迫后，甘草叶和根中抗坏血酸(ascorbic acid，ASA)含量、谷胱甘肽过氧化物酶（glutathione peroxidase，GPX）及氧化型谷胱甘肽（glutathione oxidized, GSSH）活性均高于CK组。结果表明，乌拉尔甘草苗通过增强叶和根系抗氧化酶系统及积累渗透调节物质抵御轻度至中度干旱胁迫，重度干旱则超出其生理耐受阈值；且叶抗旱表现强于根。研究结果可为干旱区乌拉尔甘草人工栽培的水分管理及抗旱种质筛选提供生理依据。

关键词: 甘草, 干旱胁迫, 活性氧, 抗氧化酶

Abstract:

To explore the effects of drought stress on the physiological characteristics and drought resistance adaptation mechanism of the seedlings of the medicinal plant Glycyrrhiza uralensis， one-year-old licorice seedlings were used as materials. Using potted plants with controlled water supply to simulate drought stress， we setted up normal water supply control （CK）， light stress （LS）， moderate stress （MS） and severe stress （SS） gradients， and measured key physiological parameters such as the antioxidant system and osmotic regulatory substances. The results showed that with the intensification of drought stress， the contents of malondialdehyde （MDA） and H₂O₂ in the leaves and roots of licorice generally showed an increasing trend， while the content of $O 2 -$ in the roots of licorice in the MS group and the SS group was lower than that of CK. The total antioxidant capacity and peroxidase （POD） of roots both showed a trend of first increasing and then decreasing， while the POD and catalase （CAT） activities of leaves first decreased and then increased， and the superoxide dismutase （SOD） activities of leaves and roots both showed a trend of first increasing and then decreasing. After drought stress， the ascorbic acid （ASA） content， glutathione peroxidase （GPX） and GSSG activities in licorice leaves and roots were all higher than those in CK. In conclusion， studies have shown that licorice seedlings can resist mild to moderate drought stress by enhancing the antioxidant enzyme system in leaves and roots and accumulating osmotic regulatory substances. Severe drought exceeds their physiological tolerance threshold， and the drought resistance of leaves is stronger than that of roots. This result provides a physiological basis for water management and drought-resistant germplasm screening of artificial cultivation of licorice in arid areas.

Key words: licorice, drought stress, reactive oxygen species, antioxidant enzymes

中图分类号:

Q945

张东, 张晓艳, 李佳乐, 张愿欣, 张凤兰, 杨忠仁, 刘建文, 旭花. 干旱胁迫对乌拉尔甘草苗生理特性的影响[J]. 生物技术进展, 2026, 16(1): 86-93.

Dong ZHANG, Xiaoyan ZHANG, Jiale LI, Yuanxin ZHANG, Fenglan ZHANG, Zhongren YANG, Jianwen LIU, Hua XU. Effects of Drought Stress on Physiological Characteristics of Licorice Seedlings[J]. Current Biotechnology, 2026, 16(1): 86-93.

图/表 16

图1 干旱胁迫下甘草叶和根中丙二醛含量的变化注：同一部位不同处理的不同小写字母表示差异在P<0.05水平有统计学意义。

Fig. 1 The MDA content in the leaves and roots of licorice under drought stress

图2 干旱胁迫下甘草叶和根超氧阴离子含量的变化注：同一部位不同处理的不同小写字母表示差异在P<0.05水平有统计学意义。

Fig. 2 The O2- content in the leaves and roots of licorice under drought stress

图3 干旱胁迫下甘草叶和根过氧化氢含量的变化注：同一部位不同处理的不同小写字母表示差异在P<0.05水平有统计学意义。

Fig. 3 The H2O2 content in the leaves and roots of licorice under drought stress

图4 干旱胁迫下甘草叶和根总抗氧化能力的变化注：同一部位不同处理的不同小写字母表示差异在P<0.05水平有统计学意义。

Fig. 4 The T-AOC in the leaves and roots of licorice under drought stress

图5 干旱胁迫下甘草叶和根SOD活性的变化注：同一部位不同处理的不同小写字母表示差异在P<0.05水平有统计学意义。

Fig. 5 The SOD activity in the leaves and roots of licorice under drought stress

图6 干旱胁迫下甘草叶和根POD活性的变化注：同一部位不同处理的不同小写字母表示差异在P<0.05水平有统计学意义。

Fig. 6 The POD activity in the leaves and roots of licorice under drought stress

图7 干旱胁迫下甘草叶和根CAT活性的变化注：同一部位不同处理的不同小写字母表示差异在P<0.05水平有统计学意义。

Fig. 7 The CAT activity of in the leaves and roots of licorice under drought stress

图8 干旱胁迫下甘草叶与根APX活性的变化注：同一部位不同处理的不同小写字母表示差异在P<0.05水平有统计学意义。

Fig. 8 The APX activity in the leaves and roots of licorice under drought stress

图9 干旱胁迫下甘草叶与根GR活性的变化注：同一部位不同处理的不同小写字母表示差异在P<0.05水平有统计学意义。

Fig. 9 The GR activity in the leaves and roots of licorice under drought stress

图10 干旱胁迫下甘草叶与根AsA含量的变化注：同一部位不同处理的不同小写字母表示差异在P<0.05水平有统计学意义。

Fig. 10 The AsA content in the leaves and roots of licorice under drought stress

图11 干旱胁迫下甘草叶与根GPX活性的变化注：同一部位不同处理的不同小写字母表示差异在P<0.05水平有统计学意义。

Fig. 11 The GPX activity in the leaves and roots of licorice under drought stress

图12 干旱胁迫下甘草叶与根GSH活性的变化注：同一部位不同处理的不同小写字母表示差异在P<0.05水平有统计学意义。

Fig. 12 The GSH activity in the leaves and roots of licorice under drought stress

图13 干旱胁迫下甘草叶与根GSSG活性的变化注：同一部位不同处理的不同小写字母表示差异在P<0.05水平有统计学意义。

Fig. 13 The GSSG activity in the leaves and roots of licorice under drought stress

图14 干旱胁迫下甘草叶与根GSH/GSSG比值的变化注：同一部位不同处理的不同小写字母表示差异在P<0.05水平有统计学意义。

Fig. 14 The GSH/GSSG value in the leaves and roots of licorice under drought stress

图15 甘草生理指标抗旱系数

Fig. 15 Drought resistance coefficient of licorice physiological indexes

表1 甘草叶和甘草根各处理的综合抗旱系数

Table 1 Comprehensive drought resistance coefficients on all indicators of licorice

处理	叶		根
处理	总值	平均值	总值	平均值
CK	8.00	0.57	8.00	0.57
LS	12.80	0.91	10.75	0.77
MS	10.76	0.77	10.64	0.76
SS	7.57	0.54	7.28	0.52

参考文献 22

[1]	杨京京,宁克伟,王明娟,等.陆地棉萌发期抗旱性评价方法及石河子垦区优质种质资源筛选[J].生物技术进展,2025,15(3):486-494.
	YANG J J, NING K W, WANG M J, et al.. The evaluation method for drought resistance during the germination period of upland cotton and screening of high-quality germplasm resources in the Shihezi reclamation area[J]. Curr. Biotechnol., 2025, 15(3): 486-494.
[2]	OBATA T, FERNIE A R. The use of metabolomics to dissect plant responses to abiotic stresses[J]. Cell. Mol. Life Sci., 2012, 69(19): 3225-3243.
[3]	郝培彤,李玉龙,宁亚明,等.不同干旱处理对科尔沁沙地不同苜蓿品种生产性能的影响[J].草地学报,2018(6):1368-1373.
	HAO P T, LI Y L, NING Y M, et al.. Effects of different drought treatments on productive performance of different alfalfa varieties in Horqin Sandy Land[J]. Acta Agrestia Sin., 2018(6): 1368-1373.
[4]	FAIZE M, BURGOS L, FAIZE L, et al.. Involvement of cytosolic ascorbate peroxidase and Cu/Zn-superoxide dismutase for improved tolerance against drought stress[J]. J. Exp. Bot., 2011, 62: 2599-2613.
[5]	BARTOLI C G, GÓMEZ F, MARTÍNEZ D E, et al.. Mitochondria are the main target for oxidative damage in leaves of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)[J]. J. Exp. Bot., 2004, 55(403): 1663-1669.
[6]	FAROOQ A, BUKHARI S A, AKRAM N A, et al.. Exogenously applied ascorbic acid-mediated changes in osmoprotection and oxidative defense system enhanced water stress tolerance in different cultivars of safflower (Carthamus tinctorious L.)[J/OL]. Plants, 2020, 9(1): 104[2025-10-21]. .
[7]	LIU H, SULTAN M A R F, LIU X L, et al.. Physiological and comparative proteomic analysis reveals different drought responses in roots and leaves of drought-tolerant wild wheat (Triticum boeoticum)[J/OL]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(4): e0121852[2025-10-02]. .
[8]	HUANG X S, WANG W, ZHANG Q, et al.. A basic helix-loop-helix transcription factor, PtrbHLH, of Poncirus trifoliata confers cold tolerance and modulates peroxidase-mediated scavenging of hydrogen peroxide[J]. Plant Physiol., 2013, 162(2): 1178-1194.
[9]	XU Y, LU J H, ZHANG J D, et al.. Transcriptome revealed the molecular mechanism of Glycyrrhiza in flata root to maintain growth and development, absorb and distribute ions under salt stress[J/OL]. BMC Plant Biol., 2021, 21(1): 599[2025-10-21]. .
[10]	XIE W, HAO Z, ZHOU X, et al.. Arbuscular mycorrhiza facilitates the accumulation of glycyrrhizin and liquiritin in Glycyrrhiza uralensis under drought stress[J]. Mycorrhiza, 2018, 28(3): 285-300.
[11]	LU J, LIANG W, LI J, et al.. Integrated morphology analysis, metabolomic analysis and gene expression to assess the quality of four adventitious roots lines of Glycyrrhiza uralensis Fisch[J]. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult., 2018, 135(1): 169-177.
[12]	张东,刘艳,张晗,等.甘草叶片形态结构和光合作用对干旱胁迫的响应[J].植物研究,2021,41(3):449-457.
	ZHANG D, LIU Y, ZHANG H, et al.. Response of photosynthesis and leaf morphological characteristics to drought stress in Glycyrrhiza uralensis [J]. Bull. Bot. Res., 2021, 41(3): 449-457.
[13]	陈娇,谢小玉,张小短,等.甘蓝型油菜苗期抗旱性鉴定及综合抗旱指标筛选[J].中国油料作物学报,2019,41(5):713-722.
	CHEN J, XIE X Y, ZHANG X D, et al.. Seedling drought resistance and parameter screening of rapeseed[J]. Chin. J. Oil Crop Sci., 2019, 41(5): 713-722.
[14]	RAMACHANDRA REDDY A, CHAITANYA K V, VIVEKANANDAN M. Drought-induced responses of photosynthesis and antioxidant metabolism in higher plants[J]. J. Plant Physiol., 2004, 161(11): 1189-1202.
[15]	GOLSHAN M, HABIBI D, BELADI S M, et al.. Copper and lead tolerance strategies in mustard (Sinapis arvensis) Egyptian clover (Trifolium alexandrinum) and hairy vetch (Vicia villosa): role of some antioxidant enzymes[J]. American-Eurasian J. Agri. Environ. Sci., 2011, 11: 122-128.
[16]	XING X H, FANG C W, LI L, et al.. Improved drought tolerance by α-naphthaleneacetic acid-induced ROS accumulation in two soybean cultivars[J]. J. Integr. Agric., 2016, 15(8): 1770-1784.
[17]	LIU J, LI J, SU X, et al.. Grafting improves drought tolerance by regulating antioxidant enzyme activities and stress-responsive gene expression in tobacco[J]. Environ. Exp. Bot., 2014, 107: 173-179.
[18]	沈少炎,吴玉香,郑郁善.植物干旱胁迫响应机制研究进展:从表型到分子[J].生物技术进展,2017,7(3):169-176.
	SHEN S Y, WU Y X, ZHENG Y S. Review on drought response in plants from phenotype to molecular[J]. Curr. Biotechnol., 2017, 7(3): 169-176.
[19]	卫星,王政权,张国珍,等.水曲柳苗木不同根序对干旱胁迫的生理生化反应[J].林业科学,2009,45(6):16-21.
	WEI X, WANG Z Q, ZHANG G Z, et al.. Physiological and biochemical responses of different order roots in Fraxinus mandshurica seedlings to drought stress[J]. Sci. Silvae Sin., 2009, 45(6): 16-21.
[20]	刘济明,赵晓鹏,廖小峰,等.罗甸小米核桃抗氧化保护酶活性和丙二醛含量对干旱胁迫的响应[J].河南农业科学,2012,41(9):122-126.
	LIU J M, ZHAO X P, LIAO X F, et al.. Study on protective enzyme system and MDA content of Juglans regia f. luodianense Liu et Xu under dry stress[J]. J. Henan Agric. Sci., 2012, 41(9): 122-126.
[21]	SHARMA P, JHA A B, DUBEY R S, et al.. Reactive oxygen species, oxidative damage, and antioxidative defense mechanism in plants under stressful conditions[J/OL]. J. Bot., 2012, 2012: 217037[2025-10-21]. .
[22]	张怡,路铁刚.植物中的活性氧研究概述[J].生物技术进展,2011,1(4):242-248.
	ZHANG Y, LU T G. The research of reactive oxygen species(ROS) in plants[J]. Curr. Biotechnol., 2011, 1(4): 242-248.

干旱胁迫对乌拉尔甘草苗生理特性的影响

Effects of Drought Stress on Physiological Characteristics of Licorice Seedlings

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 16

参考文献 22

相关文章 10

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	潘舟, 胡克. 线粒体功能障碍在缺氧性肺动脉高压中的作用[J]. 生物技术进展, 2023, 13(6): 882-888.
[2]	李世明, 张鹏, 赵鹏翔, 谢飞, 陈晓萍, 刘梦昱. 氧化应激与废用性肌萎缩研究进展[J]. 生物技术进展, 2023, 13(4): 524-533.
[3]	代地林, 吴园, 包明威. 单胺氧化酶A介导的活性氧簇在心血管疾病中的作用[J]. 生物技术进展, 2023, 13(4): 542-546.
[4]	都润, 张思琦, 张海文, 陈涛. 逆境胁迫下向日葵的耐受机制[J]. 生物技术进展, 2022, 12(2): 205-212.
[5]	钟丘实,李莉,陈新丹,张京,徐维娜,徐建雄. 2株乳杆菌全发酵培养物及其组分的抗氧化能力分析[J]. 生物技术进展, 2019, 9(3): 290-295.
[6]	沈少炎,吴玉香,郑郁善,. 植物干旱胁迫响应机制研究进展——从表型到分子[J]. 生物技术进展, 2017, 7(3): 169-176.
[7]	张靓,张兰,王晓萍. 转GmTMT2a基因玉米抗旱功能分析[J]. 生物技术进展, 2015, 5(2): 127-131.
[8]	赵忠朝,张玉秀，周正富，张维，陈明. 耐辐射异常球菌抗氧化保护机制的研究进展[J]. 生物技术进展, 2013, 3(2): 109-114.
[9]	张怡,路铁刚. 植物中的活性氧研究概述[J]. 生物技术进展, 2011, 1(4): 242-248.
[10]	王春艳,庞艳梅,李茂松,王秀芬. 干旱胁迫对大豆苗期生长发育和生理生态特征的影响[J]. 生物技术进展, 2011, 1(4): 282-288.